Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: calgal who wrote (134248)	6/2/2012 1:45:06 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) of 224704

Stupidity Laws Could Have Stopped Obama John Ransom Democrats have been crying for the last few weeks because the official bank of the Obama administration, JPMorgan Chase, lost $2 billion dollars in a hedging strategy that will likely get a few more folks fired from the firm. Democrats have used their deepest Vox Populi to decry loose bank regulations that allowed this outrage to happen. Their argument would be especially good if the bank regulations they are criticizing weren’t the result of large Democrat majorities and signed into law by President Occupy Wall Street himself just as the Democrat majorities unwound. As Reuters notes “The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law was enacted in response to the financial crisis includes the Volcker rule, which bans banks from making speculative bets with company money. But it includes an exemption for trades done to hedge risk.” Nice loophole there guys; must have raised a ton on money for Democrat campaigns on that exemption. House Republicans meanwhile are taking a more pragmatic and ultimately correct position that these losses are best left to shareholders and board of directors to figure out. "There's no law against stupidity. No law against stupid trades," said House Speak John Boehner. Because here’s where Democrat logic really falls apart: If there were laws against stupid investments, we could have used it the last three years to protect the taxpayers from Obama. How come Dodd-Frank is silent on the stupidity of a president whose past investment management expertise consists mostly of ordering t-shirts for the marches he conducted in Chicago neighborhoods? If you want to talk about really solving too-big-to-fail, or systemic risk in financial markets, you can start at the White House. Obama’s been the Typhoid Mary of the investment business since Democrats gave him an unlimited check book. It’s just possible that because of Obama the solar industry won’t recover from his government-imposed investment strategy for a decade. Solar investments- like the Guggenheim Solar ETF- which once traded above $250 before Obama was elected, trade very close to an all-time low at $17.74 during this historic, green Renaissance that Obama has ushered in. Looking only at the high-risk/no reward green company investments Obama’s made, he’s lost about $6.5 billion so far out the $34 billion in Department of Energy loans, according to CBSNews via Hot Air’s Ed Morrisse

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next